Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Can This Web Be Saved? Mozilla Accepts DRM, and We All Lose

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 374 posts

Re: Can This Web Be Saved? Mozilla Accepts DRM, and We All Lose

#151

Post by [deleted] »

michaelt wrote: post #53
snird wrote: post #21

Technology should never force it's users (the sites creators) to use one technology or another. Not implementing DRM is idiotic for couple of reasons: 1. The decision of whether or not to use DRM should be of the site creators. That's as "free" as it gets. forcing them otherwise by not letting them the option is bad. 2. Even without implementing it, DRM is available through flash or silverlight or any other third par…

So by that logic, if a site creator wants their site in powerpoint 97 .ppt format instead of using HTML, are browsers obligated to support it?

[deleted]

Re: Can This Web Be Saved? Mozilla Accepts DRM, and We All Lose

#152

Post by pessimizer »

rbanffy wrote: post #130
barrkel wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is the wrong choice. It's the same BS I remember reading on slides from graphics card vendors excusing some other way of selling the user down the river. Content can adapt to reach their customers. Bend here and the web itself is under threat. Mozilla needs a social contract like Debian, since it seems clear they can't rely on leadership for backbone.

> It is the wrong choice. WHat would the web gain if Mozilla lost most of its user base? Could we trust Apple, Microsoft and Google to have a moral backbone?

What would the web gain if Mozilla could just be pushed into chasing whatever Apple, Microsoft, and Google decide to do for fear of some users jumping ship?

edit: Mozilla needs to cultivate its brand, and set itself apart from the other browsers through actual differences in philosophy. Maybe they need a John Legere...

Re: Can This Web Be Saved? Mozilla Accepts DRM, and We All Lose

#153

Post by chris_mahan »

chris_mahan wrote: post #82
michaelt wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole point of replacing Flash with HTML5 video is to get rid of buggy third party plugins that crash all the time and have shitty cross-platform support. If HTML5 video is going to rely on buggy third party DRM plugins, we lose the benefit that was the whole point of HTML5 video.

As far as I am concerned, video should be delivered to vlc via httpstreaming. then, no browser involved.

Alternatively, the video should be made available for download as a file.

Re: Can This Web Be Saved? Mozilla Accepts DRM, and We All Lose

#154

Post by stormbrew »

rayiner wrote: post #39
stormbrew wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you could make the choice of what content to watch and what to watch it with independently, this could be said to be a free market decision. As is, my decision to support or not support DRM dictates the content I can watch. That for most people the content is more important gives the false signal that people are choosing DRM (which, in reality, pretty much nobody would). That's not a functional free market. There…

I feel like this is a rationalization. The fact that a market is free doesn't mean that producers can't sell on the terms they want. There is DRM-free content, just not the content you want. Content creators choose to use DRM because very few users object to it, and I bet with modern DRM most don't even know it exists. That's a perfectly functional free market. Its like saying that there isn't a functional free marke…

The social network example is extremely poor. In the case of a social network, Facebook has no means to prevent its users from using other social networks. The value proposition of a social network is in its users, and any network that can attract users can attract other users on that basis. There is no exclusive relationship between the content (users) and content providers (facebook et. al.).

In the case of television and film content there are basically no non-exclusive relationships between content creators and their distributors. I cannot buy only the content, I must buy their distribution restrictions as well.

Re: Can This Web Be Saved? Mozilla Accepts DRM, and We All Lose

#156

Post by Navarr »

wyager wrote: post #149
rbanffy wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is the wrong choice. WHat would the web gain if Mozilla lost most of its user base? Could we trust Apple, Microsoft and Google to have a moral backbone?

So you're saying that keeping their userbase and losing their principles is better than losing their userbase and keeping their principles? Why do we care if users go to Apple/Google/etc. if Mozilla is no better than those companies anyway?

I, at least, am saying that keeping their userbase is better than becoming irrelevant.

Re: Can This Web Be Saved? Mozilla Accepts DRM, and We All Lose

#157

Post by Dylan16807 »

res0nat0r wrote: post #144
brownbat wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The fact that a market is free... We're talking about a government-created monopoly though. If there is competition over distribution, rather than content, better delivery mechanisms eventually win. We had this when FM displaced AM radio. There was a compulsory licensing regime, which means that anyone can distribute any content they want for a reasonable fixed fee. FM was a better distribution technology, so it wo…

Huh? Since when have Hollywood movie studios been government created monopolies?

Copyright is a government-created monopoly.

Re: Can This Web Be Saved? Mozilla Accepts DRM, and We All Lose

#158

Post by neura »

dllthomas wrote: post #97
nullc wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that thats quite fair— Firefox won't run the CDM without user consent. You can still say no. Having a choice doesn't magically resolve the issues, it doesn't prevent content providers from making things formerly available unavailable, it doesn't help us (as users) make better more considered decisions rather than clicking yes a lot to get things done, etc. But it does retain the choice to not run this st…

If content providers knew that there was a large chunk of users they'd be excluding by choosing the DRM option, they would be less likely to choose it. Firefox may be only 20% of web users, but that's still a lot of revenue to leave on the table if we can rely on firefox users to stick with firefox. I don't know whether or not we can - apparently, Mozilla is worried about it. The best option might be to sink this dev…

"Content is king!" Have you never heard that before?

You say Mozilla should figure out what will draw users from other browsers, but you've outlined what will draw users from Mozilla to other browsers. In the end, people want content. The content providers have more control. If 70-80% of the browsers already support the DRM they want to use, the other 20-30% will follow or be left out. Which is exactly what happened here.

Re: Can This Web Be Saved? Mozilla Accepts DRM, and We All Lose

#159

Post by nullc »

marcosdumay wrote: post #90
saganus wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that no one can guarantee that the "opt-out" choice will continue to be there in the foreseeable future. What will happen when, suddenly Mozilla starts "feeling the pressure" to remove that option? What then? The problem is the building's foundations, not the decoration.

The proposal has an inherent opt-out choice. Content providers provide media within DRM containers, users can choose if they get the media or not. It's not like anybody can force you to watch the last Hollywood stuff.

In other implementations you can't tell if its using the DRM or not.

In the land of PDF you can find things like random federal agencies slapping the protection bits on complete inexplicable things, even though the content is public domain by law. ... just because the knob is there.

The 'you can not use it' opt-out ignores the cost of actually discovering that you should. The Mozilla proposal is better than that because it will tell you. This still doesn't solve all the issues, but its better than you'll find in other popular browsers.

Post reply on HN